Do These Mass Shootings Really Only Happen in America?

R

Rifleman1952

New member
The Top Five Worst Gun (Single Shooter) Mass Shootings:

1) Anders Breivik Norway 7/22/2011 77 killed, 151 wounded.

2) Woo Bum-Kon S. Korea 4/26/1982 57 killed, 35 wounded.

3) Martin Bryant Australia 4/28/1996 35 killed, 21 wounded.

4) Seung-Hui Cho USA 4/16/2007 32 killed, 25 wounded.

5) Campo Delgado Columbia 12/4/86 30 killed, 15 wounded.

http://www.top5ofanything.com/index.php?h=db8a4490

Madness is not something particular to America. It can and does happen anywhere.
 
Rifleman,

Google "School Attacks" and you'll find many more, which point to an even deeper truth. Not only are these atrocities not uniquely American, or new, they're also not gun related. Many of the worst have been carried out with knives and explosives.
 
I know they don't only happen in America. But I also know that they happen way too often in America. But IMO the focus needs to be on the state of mental health care in this country, rather than gun control.
 
The US handles mental illness differently than almost all other countries.

In almost all other countries someone who has a severe mental illness is either incarcerated or compelled to take their medication.

In the US those with severe mental illness are allowed to walk free without taking their medication.

Which way is best? IDK. You have to do a lot more weighing the pros and cons than I am capable to get the answer, but for sure if you have as many clinically insane people loose without taking their medication you will occasionally have something like a mass shooting.
 
Being reprimanded after a quarrel with superiors, because his wife was forced to have an abortion after she became pregnant with her second child and died in the procedure, Lt. Tian, 31, armed himself with a Type 81 assault rifle and began shooting, killing five soldiers and officers, including the Communist Party political commissar of the camp
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tian_Mingjian_incident

Silent Bob: A least Tian had an understandable motive.
 
So because it happens elsewhere, does that make it ok if it happens here?
Click to expand...
I think that at least part of the point is that they happen even where guns are heavily restricted.
But I also know that they happen way too often in America.
Click to expand...
Once is too often. But, as you say, the fact that they happen too often doesn't mean gun control is the answer. Clearly they still happen where guns are restricted. And school mass murders don't always involve guns at all.
 
It also depends on who is doing the mass shootings or bombing?

Governments do it their people all the time. Most of those governments have very strict gun laws. It doesn't protect the people obviously.

Or a nation who is killing non-combatants in another country not their own.

In that case it would appear that the worst atrocities are committed in countries where the gun laws are the strictest and the criteria for gun ownership is nearly unobtainable.
 
Buzzcook said:
So because it happens elsewhere, does that make it ok if it happens here?

Are you arguing that mass shootings are like natural disasters and there's nothing that can be done about them?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npZeVT4Puy4

I don't think we are helpless.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of it being ok, it's a matter of this or that policy stopping it.

There are countries where guns are virtually nonexistent... Rampage killers still strike.
There are countries with oft used death penalties... rampage killers still strike.
Countries with nearly unlimited access to full-auto weapons... rampage killers use bombs.
It didn't start happening when video games got violent.

It's not OK. It's not "American". It's not because of guns. It's not a new problem.

Helpless? The only help we have against an attack under way is our right to bear arms.

We lose that, we are helpless.

Hundreds of countries with different laws, religions, governments, histories, penalties, weapons... all have some form of rampage killers.

It's not an American or gun problem, its a broken humanity problem.
 
unfortunatly, attacks on schools have been going on since Pontiac's Rebellion.

wikipedia said:
The Pontiac's Rebellion school massacre was an incident during Pontiac's Rebellion, in raids and warfare on the frontier following the French and Indian War. On July 26, 1764, four Delaware (Lenape) warriors attacked the teacher and students at a schoolhouse in what is now Franklin County, Pennsylvania, near present-day Greencastle. They killed Enoch Brown, the schoolmaster, and ten children. One child who had been scalped survived.[1]
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac's_Rebellion_school_massacre

I guess you could say that they started with the Brits, since 1764 is before the United States. Keep in mind the school master and 10 children were killed in the time of muskets and tomahawks, instead of "assault rifles" and so called "high cap" mags.
 
I am not for gun control anymore than hitting your target. But the antis will take that example and say that 10 is less than half of 24, the number killed in CT. Which supports their call to ban AW.
 
Last edited:
The first thing that is important, is to under stand that violent acts against children in schools is somewhat common world wide.

Its important much in the way that its important to know the 100 year flood level. It will help plan and reduce the damage WHEN the events happen. If you act as if its impossible, you will be caught unaware and the damage will be far worse.

So we know that its common. We know that in this country to date the preferred weapon is firearms. Ideally you leave things as they are so your plans can work around your intel. If you tip off these crazies that your watching for them, or that security has changed then they will change their attack to function under the new arrangement. If you increase visible security, then they will hit buses or groups leaving the grounds. Take away firearms and they may use something more powerful and less regulated.

Think of this, why are firearms issued to military? Because they are made to kill one man while leaving the rest of the area undestroyed. Grenade launchers or RPGs are cheaper to make and have vastly more killing power, napalm or flame throwers are also cheap to make and very deadly. Its the selective killing that makes firearms the choice of the military. Banning them from civilians will not make us safer on the whole from massacres.
 
It is a fact that this kind of stuff happens at a higher proportion in America. The reasons are up for debate: guns, meds, too long of a list to keep mentioning things.

I remember as a kid talking to my friend who lived in Michigan...ton and ton of homicides and right over the lake literally there were only a couple in yrs.
 
I am not for gun control anymore than hitting your target. But the antis will take that example and say that 10 is less than half of 24, the number killed in CT. Which supports their call to ban AW.
Click to expand...
Except that based on statements by evidence techs who said that he fired 170 rounds based on their finding 17 empty mags at the scene, (170/17 = 10 rounds per magazine) Cho murdered more victims than Lanza and he did it using only 10 round mags.

Worse than that, Kehoe killed more than either Cho or Lanza and only fired a single shot in the process.
 
It is a fact that this kind of stuff happens at a higher proportion in America. ........

I remember as a kid talking to my friend who lived in Michigan...ton and ton of homicides and right over the lake literally there were only a couple in yrs.
Click to expand...

One of the hardest topics for me to defend is the lack of mass killings in other countries that banned guns, it gets thrown in my face time and again. I will play devils advocate when I ask is it true, do they really have lower homicide rates, mass killings, etc.? How can this be when we've proven more guns = less crime?

If we compare world crime rates by population density not borders would it even out?
 
I believe this tragedy - and it is a tragedy plus my heartfelt condolences go out to the families - can maybe help the CCW laws. An example is how having restrictions from law-abiding citizens carrying in certain "sensitive" areas might actually 'hurt' the victims andor their chances in a life & death situation.

I do believe the supreme court has decided that the right to carry needs to be respected and even Illinois needs to get with the program within a year to allow its law-abding citizens to carry outside of the home for protection as well.

Hopefully any further legislation won't be blind to facts that John just made above. I just don't think that is going to stop some of these crazies. Maybe less media attention will help? I am not saying this is the answer and I believe to the right for speech and free press; I am just making a point that there are things that could maybe help in the longrun and that just focusing on one solution("military type assault weapons")might not be the answer to help our society. I just hope that is the end goal. I worry that this type of thing will happen again...I remember thinking the same thing in the 90's before columbine. there were a lot of warning signs and then columbine finally got people thinking. It had happened again and again before that. Younger kids think this is all 'fresh'. the truth is that life is a slow animal that catches up with all of us. That was over 13 1/2 years ago when columbine happened.

I hope my statement isn't off base of topic. My main point is that going after a certain,perceived "firearm(assault weapon as an example) might have little effect on the root issue. "looking" at guns seems to be the easiest answer many times, but that doesn't mean it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top